V.K. Ahuja, J:-This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 8.7.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, allowing the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and granting compensation to the extent of Rs.3,80 ,000/- alongwith interest.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 as claimants filed a claim petition as against respondent No. 3 who was impleaded as owner of the vehicle and as against the appellant who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 being the insurer of the vehicle. The claim petition was filed by the claimants in regard to the death of their son Virender Dutt. It was alleged that on 30.7.2004, around 3.00 PM., deceased along with his other companions Subhash Chauhan, Yogesh Chauhan etc. was standing on the road side near a place known as Dom Bagh (Baryalta), with potatoes bags waiting for a truck to transport the potatoes to Delhi for sale. A truck No. HR-58-3353 came suddenly, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and struck against the deceased and others who rolled down into a steep Dhank resulting in the death of the deceased and his companions. The driver of the truck also died in the said accident. The claim petition was filed by the claimants being the parents of the deceased and dependent upon him.

3. In reply filed by original respondent No. 1/owner, it was pleaded that the accident took place due to locking of the steering and, therefore, the driver could not control the truck in question. In reply by original respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, they pleaded that there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. A plea was also taken that the deceased was travelling in the truck in question as an unauthorized passenger.

4. The claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rupees Seven Lacs.

5. The learned Tribunal tried the petition and on conclusion of the trial held that the claimants were entitled to the amount of compensation and the petition was allowed as against both the respondents jointly and severally.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7. The appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company mainly on two points, firstly that the learned Tribunal had come to a wrong conclusion that the deceased was standing on the road side, though the evidence established that he was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the truck. The second point taken was in regard to the quantum.

8. Coming to the first point, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the FIR it has been specifically alleged that there were passengers travelling in the truck and as such, the FIR which has already been relied upon by the claimants could not have been ignored by the learned Tribunal. Thus, it was submitted that keeping in view the FIR lodged in the case and other evidence produced by the respondents, it has to be held that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and as such, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation.

9. Coming to the evidence in this regard, there is statement of PW-1 Het Ram, petitioner, who had learnt that the deceased was standing on the road side when the truck struck against him and other persons, who were also standing on the road side. He admitted that he was not present on the spot at that time. The petitioner had also examined PW-2 Satyapal, who has stated that he was also standing on the road side along with bags of potatoes. He also stated that the deceased and other persons were standing with him when the truck came and struck with the deceased and others, who fell down in the Dhank and died. He admitted that he was living at a distance of only 2-3 K.M. from the place of occurrence and, therefore, he may have been pre